.
ALEXI LALAS Far From Close 1996
2 minutes ago
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Thinking Allowed (BBC Radio4)
Leering punters, seedy dives, cruel and crude objectification of women's bodies... the classic image of a strip joint does not leave much space for the notion that occasionally the women might enjoy the performances they give. However, a new ethnography of a lap dancing club in the North of England presents a slightly more complicated picture of life as a sexual entertainer. The sociologist Rachela Colosi worked as a dancer in the clubs she studied and her study offers a rare insiders account of the relationships between the dancers, with the management and the highs and lows, rewards and occasional despair of life as a stripper.
Also, Laurie Taylor will be talking to Marek Kohn about his predictions for the shape of British society in 2100 after global warming has brought its influence to bear.
Producer: Charlie Taylor.
Also, Laurie Taylor will be talking to Marek Kohn about his predictions for the shape of British society in 2100 after global warming has brought its influence to bear.
Producer: Charlie Taylor.
(30 minutes)
WTF???
Trafigura fined €1m for exporting toxic waste to Africa
Turnover in 2008
$73 billion that generated $440 million of profit
Meanwhile
Fugn lawyers!!!
Shocklee we #SaluteMaryAnneHobbs for all you have done for music culture!! Long live the underground!!
Friday, 23 July 2010
Statement: Mary Anne Hobbs leaves BBC
LEAVING THE BBC...
Yesterday I resigned from BBC Radio1, after an amazing multi-dimensional 14 year career.
The great freedoms the BBC have given in me as a broadcaster, have allowed me to help break so many confrontational artists as diverse as Slipknot and Skream, and of course, the whole genre of Dubstep in recent times.
My current Experimental show is in peak condition, it’s never been stronger. And although it’s a very emotional decision to leave the show that I love so much, it’s also an optimum moment to bow out, at the very top of my game.
My work for Radio1 on the Breezeblock, Rock Show, many fascinating documentaries about everything from David Bowie to Dubstep, on daytime, at festivals and award ceremonies, has been exceptionally rewarding. These have been glory days not just for me, but for all the artists who have shared my BBC platform, and of course, the listeners everywhere from Beijing to Berlin, Baltimore to Blackpool, who shared a great passion for future sound.
I will continue to DJ live, work in film, and curate at Sonar festival in Barcelona.
I have also accepted a new job mentoring and teaching students at the University of Sheffield’s Union Of Students radio station, TV station and the newspaper that operate out of their superb Forge Media Hub, which presents me with a really exciting new challenge.
My last show on BBC Radio1 will be broadcast:
September 8th>>9th … Wednesday night >> Thursday morning… 2-4am
www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/maryannehobbs
September 8th>>9th … Wednesday night >> Thursday morning… 2-4am
www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/maryannehobbs
Thank you so much for listening..
It's the World's Strongest, Most Expensive Beer - Inside a Squirrel
Our old buddies BrewDog have done it again. Not content with winning back the "strongest beer in the world" title last February with its Sink the Bismarck!, they've now upped their game with a new brew that is 55 percent alcohol by volume and carries a $765 price tag. It's called The End of History.
Oh, and did we mention that the bottles come in stuffed animals-like stuffed animals that were once alive? The 12 bottles have been made featuring seven dead stoats (a kind of weasel), four squirrels and one rabbit. James Watt, one of the two guys behind BrewDog, put it better than we ever could: "The impact of The End of History is a perfect conceptual marriage between taxidermy, art and craft brewing." Just like we've all been waiting for!
For those interested in the actual beer, it's a blond Belgian ale with touches of nettles and juniper berries -- and in order to achieve the brain-blasting alcohol content, it had to be created using extreme freezing techniques.
Oh, and did we mention that the bottles come in stuffed animals-like stuffed animals that were once alive? The 12 bottles have been made featuring seven dead stoats (a kind of weasel), four squirrels and one rabbit. James Watt, one of the two guys behind BrewDog, put it better than we ever could: "The impact of The End of History is a perfect conceptual marriage between taxidermy, art and craft brewing." Just like we've all been waiting for!
For those interested in the actual beer, it's a blond Belgian ale with touches of nettles and juniper berries -- and in order to achieve the brain-blasting alcohol content, it had to be created using extreme freezing techniques.
No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'
The (Australian) federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate".
The government has been consulting with the internet industry over the proposal, which would require ISPs to store certain internet activities of all Australians - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.
All parties to the consultations have been sworn to secrecy.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland and part of the censored document. Industry sources have claimed that the controversial regime could go as far as collecting the individual web browsing history of every Australian internet user, a claim denied by the spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland.
The exact details of the web browsing data the government wants ISPs to collect are contained in the document released to this website under FoI.
The document was handed out to the industry during a secret briefing it held with ISPs in March.
But from the censored document released, it is impossible to know how far the government is planning to take the policy.
The government is hiding the plans from the public and it appears to want to move quickly on industry consultation, asking for participants to respond within only one month after it had held the briefings.
------------------------------------------
See the highly-censored document (PDF, 3.60MB)
See government reasons for censoring it (PDF, 3.23MB)
------------------------------------------
The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".
Hernandez said that the material in question related to information the department was "currently weighing up and evaluating in relation to competing considerations that may have a bearing on a particular course of action or decision".
"More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," she wrote.
Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".
"In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate."
Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".
"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.
------------------------------------------
See the highly-censored document (PDF, 3.60MB)
See government reasons for censoring it (PDF, 3.23MB)
------------------------------------------
The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".
Hernandez said that the material in question related to information the department was "currently weighing up and evaluating in relation to competing considerations that may have a bearing on a particular course of action or decision".
"More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," she wrote.
Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".
"In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate."
Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".
"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.
The "data retention regime" the government is proposing to implement is similar to that adopted by the European Union after terrorist attacks several years ago.
Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said the excuse not to release the proposal in full was "extraordinary". Since finding out about the scheme, he has launched a Senate inquiry into it and other issues.
"The idea that its release could cause 'premature' or 'unnecessary' debate is not going to go down well with the thousands of people who have been alarmed by the direction that government is taking," he said in a telephone interview.
"I would really like to know what the government is hiding in this proposal," he said, adding that he hoped that the Attorney-General's Department would be "more forthcoming" about the proposal in the senate inquiry into privacy he pushed for in June.
"The idea that its release could cause 'premature' or 'unnecessary' debate is not going to go down well with the thousands of people who have been alarmed by the direction that government is taking," he said in a telephone interview.
"I would really like to know what the government is hiding in this proposal," he said, adding that he hoped that the Attorney-General's Department would be "more forthcoming" about the proposal in the senate inquiry into privacy he pushed for in June.
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, George Brandis, said the government’s decision to censor the documents showed ‘‘how truly Orwellian this government has become".
"To refuse disclosure of material that had already been circulated among stakeholders, on an issue of intense current political debate on the ground that it might provide unnecessary discussion, shows that the Gillard government has become beyond satire," Brandis said.
Online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said what was released was "a joke".
"We have to assume the worse," he said. "And that is that the government has been badgering the telcos with very aggressive demands that should worry everybody."
Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".
Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".
"The more sensitive the process and the data they want, the more transparent the government needs to be about why it wants that data," he said. "Nobody could argue that public consultation ... would somehow help criminals," he added.
"We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.
"We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.
"This is a very sensitive and important issue. It raises huge questions about privacy, data security and the burden of increased costs to smaller internet service providers. What really needs to be debated is what particular information they want, because that's where the privacy issue rears its ugly head," he said.
According to one internet industry source, the release of the highly censored document was "illustrative of government's approach to things where they don't want people to know what they're thinking in advance of them getting it ready to package for public consumption".
"And that’s worrying."
The Attorney-General's spokesman declined to comment, referring comment to the department. The department said it had "nothing to add" to the FOI letter it provided
According to one internet industry source, the release of the highly censored document was "illustrative of government's approach to things where they don't want people to know what they're thinking in advance of them getting it ready to package for public consumption".
"And that’s worrying."
The Attorney-General's spokesman declined to comment, referring comment to the department. The department said it had "nothing to add" to the FOI letter it provided
Ben Grubb @'SMH'
#stupidscientology
An anagram of Scientology is "Yes, not logic".
Q. How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Harry Beckett RIP
Man this is sad...just had an e/mail from a friend informing me that Harry Beckett has passed away.
Crazy as I was just thinking about him last night while listening to Asian Dub Foundation's 'Conscious Party' where the live mix was by his son Louis.
Damn!
Harry was a true gentleman and one of the nicest people that I have ever met and needless to say a mighty fine trumpeter.
I was lucky enough to know him quite well when I lived in London and Amsterdam seeing him perform all over the place with the likes of Brotherhood of Breath, Jah Wobble and all the usual suspects in the jazz scene back then.
Damn, damn, damn!
From the On-U Sound album 'The Modern Sound of Harry Beckett' produced by Adrian Sherwood
The Complex Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia
Since the days of Reefer Madness, scientists have sought to understand the complex connection between marijuana and psychosis. Cannabis can cause short-term psychotic experiences, such as hallucinations and paranoia, even in healthy people, but researchers have also long noted a link between marijuana use and the chronic psychotic disorder, schizophrenia. Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers. One widely publicized 2007 review of the research even concluded that trying marijuana just once was associated with a 40% increase in risk of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.
One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana. Still, some studies suggest that smoking pot can actually trigger the disease earlier in individuals who are predisposed, and yet researchers still aren't seeing increases in the overall schizophrenia rate or decreases in the average age of onset.
In recent months, new research has explored some of these issues. One study led by Dr. Serge Sevy, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, looked at 100 patients between the ages of 16 and 40 with schizophrenia, half of whom smoked marijuana. Sevy and colleagues found that among the marijuana users, 75% had begun smoking before the onset of schizophrenia and that their disease appeared about two years earlier than in those who did not use the drug. But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared.
Gender alone accounted for a large proportion of the risk of early onset in Sevy's study, which included 69 men and 31 women. "Males in general have earlier age of onset of schizophrenia," says Sevy. In men, the disease tends to take hold around age 19, while in women it isn't typically seen until 22 — irrespective of marijuana use. But, typically, teenage boys are four times more likely than girls to be heavy pot smokers, which may create an illusory association between the drug and onset of the disease.
Yet past studies limited to males have found exactly such a link, associating marijuana use with earlier development of full-blown psychosis. And other research has found that ongoing cannabis use increases hospitalizations for psychotic symptoms in schizophrenic patients and decreases social and cognitive functioning. A 2008 review of the data found that relapse and failure to take prescribed medication was consistently associated with cannabis use, although, again, controlling for other factors weakened the link.
One explanation could be that the effects of marijuana vary depending on the genetics of the individual patient's schizophrenia. Marie-Odile Krebs, professor of psychiatry at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) laboratory in France, and her colleagues published a study in June that identified two broad groups of people with schizophrenia who used cannabis: those whose disease was profoundly affected by their drug use and those who were not.
Within Krebs's study population of 190 patients (121 of whom had used cannabis), researchers found a subgroup of 44 whose disease was powerfully affected by the drug. These patients either developed schizophrenia within a month of beginning to smoke pot or saw their existing psychosis severely exacerbated with each successive exposure to the drug. Schizophrenia appeared in these patients nearly three years earlier than in other marijuana-users with the disease.
Justin Sullivan @'Time'
Why It Makes Sense For Record Labels To Offer All Music Freely As MP3s
We've been making this sort of argument for many, many years, but it's nice to see that it's catching on in a variety of places, including the more mainstream media. Over in the UK, there's a column in the Telegraph advocating that record labels stop trying technological and legal efforts to fight unauthorized file trading online, and instead give away all their music as free MP3s, and focus on alternative revenue streams. The crux of the argument is the same one that we've made over and over again, namely (1) fighting unauthorized file trading is counterproductive, doesn't work and will never work and (2) once you free up the music, there are all sorts of compelling business models you can adopt that can actually help you make more money. The column is a bit weak on highlighting some of those business models, though there are plenty. But, it's still nice to see the concept getting more attention.
WTF???
Family fury as CPS rules out prosecution over Tomlinson death
It emerged that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had backed a prosecution for manslaughter.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Nick Clegg's 'illegal' Iraq war gaffe prompts legal warning
Nick Clegg was tonight forced to clarify his position on the Iraq war after he stood up at the dispatch box of the House of Commons and pronounced the invasion illegal.
The deputy prime minister insisted he was speaking in a personal capacity, as a leading international lawyer warned that the statement by a government minister in such a formal setting could increase the chances of charges against Britain in international courts.
Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, said: "A public statement by a government minister in parliament as to the legal situation would be a statement that an international court would be interested in, in forming a view as to whether or not the war was lawful."
The warning came after a faltering performance by Clegg in the Commons when he stood in for David Cameron at prime minister's questions. The deputy prime minister made an initial mistake when he announced that the government would close the Yarl's Wood centre as it ends the detention of children awaiting deportation. The Home Office was forced to issue a statement saying that the family unit at Yarl's Wood would close but that the rest of the centre would remain open.
Shortly before that slip-up, Clegg threw the government's position concerning the legality of the Iraq war into confusion when, at the end of heated exchanges with Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the war, Clegg said: "We may have to wait for his memoirs, but perhaps one day he will account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of Iraq."
Clegg's remarks could be legally significant because he was standing at the government dispatch box in the Commons.
Downing Street played down the significance of the remarks by issuing a statement saying that he was expressing his "long-held view" about the Iraq conflict. In an attempt to avoid speculation about splits with Cameron, who voted in favour of the war, Downing Street added that the government would await the findings of the Chilcot inquiry before reaching a view on the war.
"The coalition government has not expressed a view on the legality or otherwise of the Iraq conflict," the No 10 spokesman said. "But that does not mean that individual members of the government should not express their individual views. These are long-held views of the deputy prime minister.
"The Iraq inquiry is currently examining many issues surrounding the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the legal basis of the war. The government looks forward to receiving the inquiry's conclusions."
But this appeared to be contradicted by the Chilcot inquiry, which issued a statement saying it was examining the legal issues in the run-up to the war but would not make a judgment about the legality of the war. A spokesman said: "The inquiry is not a court of law, and no one is on trial."
The government also faced a challenge in explaining an apparently new constitutional convention that the second most senior member of the cabinet is now free to stand at the dispatch box and express opinions of his own that do not reflect government policy.
Asked whether Clegg had been speaking as the leader of the Liberal Democrats and not as deputy prime minister, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Yes."
Asked how MPs could establish in future whether Clegg is speaking as deputy prime minister or as leader of the Liberal Democrats, the spokeswoman said: "The deputy prime minister is entitled to express his own view at the dispatch box."
The Lib Dems were keen to play down the significance of Clegg's remarks. But it is understood that the Lib Dem leader feels freer to speak out against the alleged illegality of the Iraq war after the recent publication of previously classified documents by the Chilcot inquiry.
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, wrote to Sir John Chilcot on 25 June to allow the inquiry to publish more documents relating to the legal advice. The most significant of these documents was a note on 30 January 2003 by the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to Tony Blair.
In the note Goldsmith wrote: "I remain of the view that the correct legal interpretation of [UN security council] resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council."
Goldsmith famously changed his mind on the legality of the war in March 2003 after Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, demanded a clear undertaking that military action would be lawful. Boyce feared that British forces could face legal action unless the invasion had legal cover.
On 7 March 2003, after visiting Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that a new UN resolution may not be necessary, although invading Iraq without one could lead to Britain being indicted before an international court. Ten days later Goldsmith ruled that an invasion would be lawful.
Sands said: "Lord Goldsmith never gave a written advice that the war was lawful. Nick Clegg is only repeating what Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair on 30 January 2003: that without a further UN security resolution the war would be illegal and Jack Straw knows that."
Nicholas Watt @'The Guardian'
Check Your Head (Beastie Boys) – 2009-08-18 – Dj Moneyshot
The one and only DJ Moneyshot has sent us this truly astonishingly amazing mixtape. To put it simply and in the words of the man himself ‘It’s a mega thrash through all the tunes that the Beastie Boys plundered for their Check Your Head album, looped, re-edited and blended right up by my good self.’ Only it’s not that simple. Something as finely crafted as this could never be so simple.
1. Jimi Hendrix – EXP
2. Bob Marley – Duppy Conqueror
3. Barrington Levy – Under Me Sensi
4. Bad Brains – Supertouch/Shitfit
5. Lee “Scratch” Perry & The Upsetters – Kojak
6. Johnny Hammond – Big Sur Suite
7. James Newton – Choir
8. Beastie Boys – Professor Booty
9. Funkadelic – I Wanna Know If It’s Good to You?
10. Richard Pryor – Acid
11. Big Youth – Solomon A Gunday
12. The Ohio Players – Funky Worm
13. Dr. John – I Walk On Guilded Splinters
14. Larry Jones – Funky Jaws
15. Buddy Miles Express – Let Your Lovelight Shine
16. Rammelzee vs. K-Rob – Beat Bop
17. Jimmy Smith – I’m Gonna Love You Just a Little More, Baby
18. Lee Quinones – Wild Style Film Dialogue
19. Big Daddy Kane – Just Rhymin’ With Biz
20. Southside Movement – I’ve Been Watching You
21. Mantronix – Fresh Is The Word
22. The Fearless Four – Rockin It
23. Freddie Hubbard – Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
24. Grady Tate – Be Black Baby
25. EPMD – So What Cha Sayin’
26. Rahsaan Roland Kirk – Freaks For The Festival
27. Jimi Hendrix – Foxey Lady
28. The Turtles – I’m Chief Kamanawanalea (We’re The Royal Macadamia Nuts)
29. The Village Callers – Hector
30. Back Door – Slivadiv
31. Cheech & Chong – Don’t Bug Me
32. Jimi Hendrix – Happy Birthday
33. Willie Henderson – Loose Booty
34. Johnny Hammond – Breakout
35. Buddy Miles Express – Train
36. Jimi Hendrix – Are You Experienced?
37. The Eleventh Hour – Medley (Sock It To Me/It’s Your Thing)
38. Kool & The Gang – Give It Up
39. Cheap Trick – Surrender (Live at Budokan)
40. 5th Dimension – Age of Aquarius
41. Beastie Boys – Live at the P.J’s
42. Bad Brains – Big Take Over
43. The National Lampoon Comedians – Mr. Roberts #1
44. Ted Nuggent – Homebound
45. Jimi Hendrix – Still Raining, Still Dreaming
2. Bob Marley – Duppy Conqueror
3. Barrington Levy – Under Me Sensi
4. Bad Brains – Supertouch/Shitfit
5. Lee “Scratch” Perry & The Upsetters – Kojak
6. Johnny Hammond – Big Sur Suite
7. James Newton – Choir
8. Beastie Boys – Professor Booty
9. Funkadelic – I Wanna Know If It’s Good to You?
10. Richard Pryor – Acid
11. Big Youth – Solomon A Gunday
12. The Ohio Players – Funky Worm
13. Dr. John – I Walk On Guilded Splinters
14. Larry Jones – Funky Jaws
15. Buddy Miles Express – Let Your Lovelight Shine
16. Rammelzee vs. K-Rob – Beat Bop
17. Jimmy Smith – I’m Gonna Love You Just a Little More, Baby
18. Lee Quinones – Wild Style Film Dialogue
19. Big Daddy Kane – Just Rhymin’ With Biz
20. Southside Movement – I’ve Been Watching You
21. Mantronix – Fresh Is The Word
22. The Fearless Four – Rockin It
23. Freddie Hubbard – Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
24. Grady Tate – Be Black Baby
25. EPMD – So What Cha Sayin’
26. Rahsaan Roland Kirk – Freaks For The Festival
27. Jimi Hendrix – Foxey Lady
28. The Turtles – I’m Chief Kamanawanalea (We’re The Royal Macadamia Nuts)
29. The Village Callers – Hector
30. Back Door – Slivadiv
31. Cheech & Chong – Don’t Bug Me
32. Jimi Hendrix – Happy Birthday
33. Willie Henderson – Loose Booty
34. Johnny Hammond – Breakout
35. Buddy Miles Express – Train
36. Jimi Hendrix – Are You Experienced?
37. The Eleventh Hour – Medley (Sock It To Me/It’s Your Thing)
38. Kool & The Gang – Give It Up
39. Cheap Trick – Surrender (Live at Budokan)
40. 5th Dimension – Age of Aquarius
41. Beastie Boys – Live at the P.J’s
42. Bad Brains – Big Take Over
43. The National Lampoon Comedians – Mr. Roberts #1
44. Ted Nuggent – Homebound
45. Jimi Hendrix – Still Raining, Still Dreaming
paul__lewis Knowing the #IanTomlinson case inside-out, I really am shocked. Manslaughter was always a tough call, but no charge at all? Not misconduct?
Various Assets – Not For Sale – Red Bull Music Academy London 2010
“...beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable.”
Meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu (the other) week, President Obama could not have been more effusive. “I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace,” Obama said. “I believe he is ready to take risks for peace.”
A newly revealed tape of Netanyahu in 2001, being interviewed while he thinks the cameras are off, shows him in a radically different light. In it, Netanyahu dismisses American foreign policy as easy to maneuver, boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery, and suggests that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (all translations are mine).
According to Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, the video should be “Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.”
Netanyahu is speaking to a small group of terror victims in the West Bank settlement of Ofra two years after stepping down as prime minister in 1999. He appears laid-back. After claiming that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack, Netanyahu was asked by one of the participants whether or not the United States would let such an attack come to fruition.
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” He then called former president Bill Clinton “radically pro-Palestinian,” and went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.
“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”
Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”...
A newly revealed tape of Netanyahu in 2001, being interviewed while he thinks the cameras are off, shows him in a radically different light. In it, Netanyahu dismisses American foreign policy as easy to maneuver, boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery, and suggests that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (all translations are mine).
According to Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, the video should be “Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.”
Netanyahu is speaking to a small group of terror victims in the West Bank settlement of Ofra two years after stepping down as prime minister in 1999. He appears laid-back. After claiming that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack, Netanyahu was asked by one of the participants whether or not the United States would let such an attack come to fruition.
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” He then called former president Bill Clinton “radically pro-Palestinian,” and went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.
“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”
Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”...
Liel Lebovitz @'Tablet'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
